BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Monday, the 17th day of August, 2009
CC.No. 64 of 2008
Between:
B. Ramulu S/o Pentaiah, Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Retired Al-Kabeer Employee,
R/o Byathol (V), Sangareddy Mandal,
Dist. Medak.
….. Complainant
And
1. The Commissioner,
Regional Provident Fund Office,
Barkathpura, Hyderabad.
2. The Asst. Commissioner,
Sub-Regional Office,
Employees Provident Funds Organization,
Susheeram Complex, Mail Road,
Patancheru Town & Mandal,
District Medak.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 21.07.2009 in the presence of Sri. S.N. Chary, advocate for complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in person, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.53,987/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to award Rs.50,000/ for deficiency in service.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant worked as skilled labour in Al-Kaber Exports Limited, Rudraram village, Patancheru Mandal. During that period he has contributed amounts towards provident fund which was deducted from his salary every month. Employer also contributed equal amount. The opposite party No. 2 allotted P.F. No. AP 261/39/429. on 04.02.2006 the complainant applied for withdrawal of amount but till the filing of the complaint he has not received the provident fund amount. On 27.09.2000 the opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant stating that his claim was settled and a cheque was sent to him but the complainant has not received the cheque and the same was informed to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. There is neither reply nor they have arranged for payment of the PF amount. The complainant is badly in need of money. He has visited the offices of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 number of times for his claim amount but in vair so having no alternative, the complainant issued a legal notice to both the opposite parties who have received it on 07.04.2007 for which there is neither any reply nor compliance. From the year 2000 the complainant has been waiting for the provident fund amount. The opposite parties intentionally not setting the claim an it amounts to deficiency in service, therefore they are bound to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. The claim is resisted by the opposite parties by filing a counter of opposite party No. 2, on behalf of both the opposite parties. The contents of the counter in brief are as follows:
3. The provident fund account number of the complainant mentioned in the complaint is not correct. The correct Number is AP/26139/429. It is false that on 04.02.2006 the complainant submitted EPF withdrawal application form. As per the office records provident fund application form –19 of the complainant has been received on 21.12.1999 and the claim was settled on 29.09.1999 for a sum of Rs.526/ and the same has been sent to him through postal money order to his H.No. 1-13/27, Post: Chiadurpa, Village: byathol, Mandal Sangareddy, by opposite party No. 1 vide office payment item No. 2174/5100 and which was included in the cheque No. 721680, dated. 13.01.2000 along with other members’ amounts and the said cheque was sent to post master, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. In this case cheque Number and date does not arise as claimed by the complainant. The cheque was issued in the name of post master which comprises the amounts in respect of number of other claimants also who have opted for refund of their PF money through M.O. and the complainant hearin was one among them. The legal notice of the complainant was received several years after settlement of his EPF account, which as no effect has it is null and void.
4. It is pertinent to note that the complainant worked as labourer in M/s AlKabeer Exports Limited, Rudraram for a period of five months only from 01.04.1997 to 31.08.1997 with a meager wage of RS.690/- per month (approximately) and the employees contribution to EPF was at 10% of the total wage which works out to Rs.69/- per month hence the complainant’s claim for Rs.53,978/- is baseless and absurd . The complainant’s allegation that he has visited the offices of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 several times is not true. He never approached the competent authorities for redressal of his grievance / doubt. The complainant is misleading this forum and further wasting its precious time and that of the opposite parties with ulterior motive. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs, as the claim of the complainant has already been settled and the amount was also sent through money order.
5. To prove the respective contentions in the pleadings of both parties, evidence affidavits are filed. Even though complainant’s advocate filed six documents along with the complaint and another document subsequently, none of them is marked an Exhibit, inspite of granting several adjournments for the purpose. Ex.B1 to B6 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Written arguments are not filed on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of the opposite parties written arguments are filed. Oral arguments are not advanced on either side. After affording due opportunity by granting nine adjournments from 09.04.2009 to 21.07.2009 it was deemed that there were no arguments on either side to advance. Perused the record.
6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
Point:
The complainant’s case is that he worked as labourer in AlKabeer Exports Limited, Rudraram and during that period he has contributed to provident fund and equal amount was contributed by employer also and opposite party No. 2 has allotted PF. No. Ap26139/429 and when the complainant applied for withdrawal of the amount the opposite parties have not paid. It is his further case that on 27.09.2000 the opposite parties sent a letter to him stating that his claim was settled and cheque was issued to him, but he has not received any cheque. According to the complainant when he got a legal notice issued there is no response from the opposite parties and his going round the offices of the opposite parties, number of times proved futile; hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.53,987/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of issue of intimation and to award Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant was a member in the provident fund scheme when he worked in M/s AlKabeer Exports Limited for a period of five months only from 01.04.1997 to 31.08.1997 with a meager wage of Rs.690/- per month and the employee’s contribution to EPF was 10% on the total wage which works out to Rs.69/- per month, hence he was entitled to receive Rs.526/- and the same was sent through postal money order to his residential address which amount was included in the consolidated cheque payable to all employees who applied for refund of their amounts. According to the opposite parties the application for refund of the amount was received by their office on 21.12.1999 but not on 04.02.2006 as stated in the complaint and it was settled on 21.12.1999 for a sum of Rs.526/-. According to the opposite parties the complainant’s claim for Rs.53987/- is baseless and absurd.
7. As already stated above even though the complainant has filed various documents along with the complaint and another document subsequently, to prove his contentions, he has not marked any of them as exhibits to consider his case. However Xerox copies of all of them are marked on behalf of the opposite parties as exhibits B1 to B5. Ex. B1, which is also filed by the complainant as first document, shows that it is claim form for refund of the amount of the complainant and it contains the receive date stamp in the office of opposite party No. 1 on 21.12.1999 as stated by the opposite parties in their counter. Ex. B6 marked on behalf of the opposite parties shows the amount payable to the complainant is Rs.526/- and cheque bearing No.. 721680, dated. 13.01.2000 was sent for a total amount of Rs. 56584/- payable to various employees, including the complainant.
8. Even though nine adjournments were granted, the complainant or his advocate not turned up to prosecute the matter from 09.04.2009 to 21.07.2009. Therefore in the circumstances stated supra the claim of the complainant does not sustain and there are no merits for the complainant to succeed in the case. In the circumstances, because the claim is made in a matter which is already settled, the complaint must be mulcted with costs. But as the complainant is a labourer and not educated, it appears he was not properly advised therefore a lenient view is being taken in this regard. It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief much less for the amounts claimed in the complaint. The point is answered against the complainant.
9. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 17th day of August, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
-Nil- Ex.B1/dt. – Xerox copy of Employees provident fund scheme form-19.
Ex.B2/dt.04.02.2006 – Xerox copy of EPF Members options form.
Ex.B3/dt.07.04.2007 – Xerox copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.B4/dt. 25.06.2007 – Xerox copy of complaint –Settled reply.
Ex.B5/dt.16.07.2007 – Xerox copy of complaint –Settled reply
Ex.B6/dt. – Xerox copy of Extract of M.O. watching register – 1999- 2000
PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Parties
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On ___________
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
